Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In the Jewish tradition lineage is passed through the father and not through the mother. Given that Christ was purportedly born of a virgin, how does he claim the lineage of David?

I know my beliefs on the subject, was curious what the rest of you thought on the subject.

Originally posted by Regret
In the Jewish tradition lineage is passed through the father and not through the mother. Given that Christ was purportedly born of a virgin, how does he claim the lineage of David?

I know my beliefs on the subject, was curious what the rest of you thought on the subject.

It is traced "legally" through Jesus legal father (Joseph).

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It is traced "legally" through Jesus legal father (Joseph).

So Jesus was not a descendant of David?

The Jews believed that the Messiah will be a direct descendend from King David, and Jesus needed to be the Messiah. He wanted to guide the Jews and teach things, and for that he needed the support of the people. Jesus said he was a descendent of the King David to get the support he needed.

King David a king that are just as much provable as King Arthur and the knights of the round table.......................................and the sword in hte stone

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So Jesus was not a descendant of David?

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus bitches someone out for referring to him as David's son.

yeah in those days sperm couldn't be frozen so you must understand this jesus frustration over this particular subject

Originally posted by Atlantis001
The Jews believed that the Messiah will be a direct descendend from King David, and Jesus needed to be the Messiah. He wanted to guide the Jews and teach things, and for that he needed the support of the people. Jesus said he was a descendent of the King David to get the support he needed.

That is not true. Jesus mother (in His humanity) is a descendant of King David. Jesus legal father Joseph is also a descendant of King David.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That is not true. Jesus mother (in His humanity) is a descendant of King David. Jesus legal father Joseph is also a descendant of King David.

"Legal father" does not equal biological father. If the blood line depends on the father then Jesus can not be of David.

But Mary is of David to? Where her and Joseph cousins or something? Seems like a big coincidence they just happened to end up together - after all, David didn't populate the world.

check Luke out.. Jesus's family tree from him to God... I'm giving the exact chapter in a few mins. gotta look it up..

oh here... cool..

Luke 3:23-38

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
oh here... cool..

Luke 3:23-38 Now compare Joseph's father in Luke to Joseph's father in Matthew.

I believe in the Bible, but there are errors in the text.

somehow I doubt this is the thread to go into how genetic lineage is passed along bloodlines as opposed to what was written and rewritten in a book that has evolved over the years.

Originally posted by Regret
Now compare Joseph's father in Luke to Joseph's father in Matthew.

I believe in the Bible, but there are errors in the text.

Regrettable (just funnin') have you ever heard the term "synoptic" gospels? The word synoptic means: presenting or taking the same or common view. The gospels are actually a composite of Jesus' life and ministry. The gospels should be considered as a whole, each one complementing the other until you arrive at a complete picture.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Regrettable (just funnin') have you ever heard the term "synoptic" gospels? The word synoptic means: presenting or taking the same or common view. The gospels are actually a composite of Jesus' life and ministry. The gospels should be considered as a whole, each one complementing the other until you arrive at a complete picture.

There are more then just four gospels. The four in the bible are the four that the Catholic Church picked.

That must mean that they are the four "unchirstian" ones.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Regrettable (just funnin') have you ever heard the term "synoptic" gospels? The word synoptic means: presenting or taking the same or common view. The gospels are actually a composite of Jesus' life and ministry. The gospels should be considered as a whole, each one complementing the other until you arrive at a complete picture. All the same, an error is an error.

Hey Christboy, why do you call Jesus the Son of David when he explicitly said not to?

You have read Mark, right?

Originally posted by Gregory
Hey Christboy, why do you call Jesus the Son of David when he explicitly said not to?

You have read Mark, right? I believe you are oversimplifying and taking Christ's statements on the title Son of David out of context.

Hit Me With A Rock
by Al Yankovic

Lyrics:

When I was a little boy
(When I was just a boy)
And my mother would call my name
(When I was just a boy)
She'd say I had to be in the house by seven
(When I was just a boy)

But I'd stay out late at night
(When I was just a boy)
And when I'd finally get back in
Oh, I know she'd hit me, she'd hit me
She'd sit me on her knees and whip me

Oh, she'd hit me with a rock
She'd whip me with a rock, oh baby
She'd hit me (hit me with a rock)
She'd hit me, hit me, hit me, hit me
(Hit me with a rock)

And when I was grown to be a man
(Grown to be a man)
The minute the boss would call my name
(Grown to be a man)
And say I had to be in the office by seven
(Grown to be a man)

I'm a constipated man
(Grown to be a man)
And when I'd finally get back in
Oh, my boss'd hit me, he'd hit me
He'd tie me to a chair and whip me

Oh he'd hit me with a rock
He'd whip me with a rock, oh baby
He'd hit me (hit me with a rock)
He'd hit me, hit me, hit me, hit me
(Hit me with a rock)

When I was grown to be President
(Was the President)
The minute the congress'd call my name
(Was the President)
And said some papers had to be signed by Thursday
(Had to be signed by Thursday)

I'd fly away to Pakistan
(Was the President)
And the second that I'd get back home
Oh, I know they'd hit me, they'd hit me
With leather and chains they'd whip me

Oh, they'd hit me with a rock
They'd whip me with a rock, oh baby
They'd hit me. (Hit me with a rock)
They'd hit me, hit me, hit me, hit me
(Hit me with a rock)
Hit me, hit me, hit me
(Hit me with a rock)
They'd hit me, hit me, hit me, hit me
(Hit me with a rock)
Yah yah yah yah yah yah
(Hit me with a rock)
(Hit with a rock)
Ow, whaddaya doin' to me, get away from me
(Hit with a rock, oh baby)
(Hit with a rock)
(He's gettin' hit with a rock)
(He's gettin' hit with a rock, oh baby)
(Hit with a rock)

Wait a minute, hold it
I think he's dead
Let's leave
Let's get out of here, man


In the Paul Simon lyrics......It's the devil that came to him....But these were funnier........

Originally posted by Regret
I believe you are oversimplifying and taking Christ's statements on the title Son of David out of context.

The context:

Jesus replied, "The first is this: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!
30
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.'
31
The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
32
The scribe said to him, "Well said, teacher. You are right in saying, 'He is One and there is no other than he.'
33
And 'to love him with all your heart, with all your understanding, with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself' is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
34
And when Jesus saw that (he) answered with understanding, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And no one dared to ask him any more questions.
35
6 As Jesus was teaching in the temple area he said, "How do the scribes claim that the Messiah is the son of David?
36
David himself, inspired by the holy Spirit, said: 'The Lord said to my lord, "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet."'
37
David himself calls him 'lord'; so how is he his son?" (The) great crowd heard this with delight.
38
7 In the course of his teaching he said, "Beware of the scribes, who like to go around in long robes and accept greetings in the marketplaces,
39
seats of honor in synagogues, and places of honor at banquets.
40
They devour the houses of widows and, as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers. They will receive a very severe condemnation."
41
8 He sat down opposite the treasury and observed how the crowd put money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums.
42
A poor widow also came and put in two small coins worth a few cents.
43
Calling his disciples to himself, he said to them, "Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury.
44
For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood."

Can't see how it affects the meaning of the saying. The scribes say that the messiah is the Son of David, and Jesus refutes it. Of course, Jesus is called Son of David elsewhere in the Gospel by other people, if that's what you mean.

I don't think I'm oversimplifying Mark. I'm oversimplifying the Son of David issue by only quoting Mark, when, for example, Jesus is called "the son of David," in Matthew, but even that's not terribly difficult; Matthew was more Jewish then Mark, so he wanted to embed Jesus in the OT tradition.

Originally posted by Gregory
Can't see how it affects the meaning of the saying. The scribes say that the messiah is the Son of David, and Jesus refutes it. Of course, Jesus is called Son of David elsewhere in the Gospel by other people, if that's what you mean.

I don't think I'm oversimplifying Mark. I'm oversimplifying the Son of David issue by only quoting Mark, when, for example, Jesus is called "the son of David," in Matthew, but even that's not terribly difficult; Matthew was more Jewish then Mark, so he wanted to embed Jesus in the OT tradition.

You have oversimplified it by forgetting to whom Christ was speaking. Christ was speaking to the scribes, who were stating that the Christ was not above David by stating that Christ was the Son of David, and also thus merely a man.

Bartimaeus called him by the title Son of David and was not rebuked in any of the gospels, neither was the woman of Canaan.

Yes, you also oversimplify by only quoting Mark, and further err by assuming Matthew's intent and motivation.

Originally posted by Regret
In the Jewish tradition lineage is passed through the father and not through the mother. Given that Christ was purportedly born of a virgin, how does he claim the lineage of David?

I know my beliefs on the subject, was curious what the rest of you thought on the subject.


Regardless, Mary gets way more credit for Jesus' appearance, simply because she gave birth to him...and she should get more credit, because she suffered to bring him into this world, and she never even experiences an ORGASM !

Poor Girl

But ne way, I think that was a very interesting topic you brought up...im surprised how few people actually think of these things...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Regardless, Mary gets way more credit for Jesus' appearance, simply because she gave birth to him...and she should get more credit, because she suffered to bring him into this world, and she never even experiences an ORGASM !

Poor Girl

But ne way, I think that was a very interesting topic you brought up...im surprised how few people actually think of these things...

Thanks, I actually came across a Jewish attack on Jesus as Messiah a few years back, it was an interesting read. I find the topics have started getting boring and thought I'd present something that might cause some debate. The Jews do hold this as one of the evidences that Christ was not the Messiah prophesied. My personal belief is that Christ held the lineage through divinely accepted adoption of Jesus by Joseph.

Originally posted by Regret
Thanks, I actually came across a Jewish attack on Jesus as Messiah a few years back, it was an interesting read. I find the topics have started getting boring and thought I'd present something that might cause some debate. The Jews do hold this as one of the evidences that Christ was not the Messiah prophesied. My personal belief is that Christ held the lineage through divinely accepted adoption of Jesus by Joseph.



His lineage should not matter...is not a Virgin Birth enough? Why does Mary does get the recognition she deserves? She gave birth to him..she is free of sin, David and Joseph were sinners....

Mary is cleaner than both, and if Jesus is truly the son of God, then his human lineage is irrelevant.

Did anyone read my song...............it was funny...

Won't do. The scribes didn't believe that the Messiah was "merely a man," either. The believed, for example, that he was preexistant ("Before God created the world ... he created the messiah"

You might also want to conisder Mark's theology. Find a few references in Mark that make it clear that Jesus isn't "just a man" with God-granted powers. Not terribly easy; it would be a more convincing argument for the Gospel of Matthew.

Speaking of which, for all that I mentioned Matthew, you don't seriously suggest that I should try to understand Mark in the context of a later document? Matthew was written after Mark, remember.

Originally posted by Gregory
Won't do. The scribes didn't believe that the Messiah was "merely a man," either. The believed, for example, that he was preexistant ("Before God created the world ... he created the messiah"

You might also want to conisder Mark's theology. Find a few references in Mark that make it clear that Jesus isn't "just a man" with God-granted powers. Not terribly easy; it would be a more convincing argument for the Gospel of Matthew.

Speaking of which, for all that I mentioned Matthew, you don't seriously suggest that I should try to understand Mark in the context of a later document? Matthew was written after Mark, remember. No, in the context of the whole.